Posted on 09/30/2005 10:51:39 AM PDT by holymoly
Make no bones about it: I am a liberal who believes that guns in themselves are not evil.
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people in debates about gun control. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?
It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb.
In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, guns cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.
What is evil is a government that allows people to buy guns - semi-automatic and automatic ones at that - who should not even be allowed to touch one.
Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?
No.
People who should not be allowed to own guns:
• anybody who has committed a felony, ever. Exceptions could be made for people who have clearly “recovered” and wanted a weapon to protect their households.
• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.
• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.
• anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a gun for the purposes of self-protection and self-defense? Yes. In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL guns, criminals would probably still be able to get their hands on them (although it might be a bit more difficult). Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.
This right, however, should not extend into the realm of automatic weapons. The gun must have a child safety feature, and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her gun to whomever he or she chooses because you never know what kind of psychotic individual might then be the owner of the gun.
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.
Should these automatic weapons be legal?
NO. No, no, no.
If anybody can make a good argument as to why such weapons should be legal, or what positive purpose they serve in our society (or what purpose at all), please e-mail me or write an editorial about it.
A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.
So, in conclusion, guns are not evil. The acts they commit – via a person pulling the trigger – can be evil, but they are not always. I think it is always wrong to kill another person, regardless of what they have done. But it is not wrong to injure one who is trying to injure you or your family. Automatic weapons are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.
Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.
Say What!
More likely to kill the intruder? You becha, Jack! That is what a good 12ga. pump is for. Only problem is cleaning up the mess.
Point well taken. I suppose the anti's would allow a flintlock, but outlaw the blunderbuss.
FMCDH(BITS)
For some reason, I think she just might object. /s
Actually, the illicit NFA tax was set at $200 as that was the price of a Thompson in 1933.
The Thompson was just about the only SMG available at the time.
If congress had never passed prohibition, the MOB would never have become such a problem, and MG's might still be completely unrestrticted in the U.S.
"2nd Amendment is in place to defend the republic from foreign and domestic tyranny"
You would NOT know that from the screams of FEAR from "freepers" when they saw U.S. Marine volunteers trying to SAVE Americans after the hurricanes.
The U.S. Marine swears an Oath to GOD to "... support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."
That IS the Second Amendment and that scares the sheeples mightly?
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
****Someone correct me if I'm wrong here: IIRC While not banned per se, they are heavily regulated by the BATFE (as Class III weapons).****
No you are correct, they are legal - by Federal Law.
As to "heavily regulated", I guess that would be a good description, depending on ones definition of 'heavily'. To me yes, to someone else no.
But one thing is for sure, it's gotten GD expensive to obtain, keep and use the Class III License from our friends at BATFE. The transfer tax for each weapon is through the roof now.
And the other problem is that the states themselves are banning Class III firearms. Here in IL I used to be able to have them, but no more (dam gun grabbing Daley). Ironically in Kalifornia they still are legal (IIRC). I have the 2004 book from BATFE (laws & regs) and could look it up but I'm lazy today :-)
Anyway, you were correct they're legal as far as the "G" is concerned.
>>>What is evil is a government that allows people to buy guns - semi-automatic and automatic ones at that - who should not even be allowed to touch one. <<<
And who determines who is allowed and who is to be disenfranchised? Alexander Hamilton warned us about this form of backdoor usurpation with this statement:
"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions by letting into the government principles and precedents which afterward prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and banishment, by acts of legislature."
What happens to those citizens who are permanently banished from the ranks of freemen? Does not this type of disenfranchisement create anger in those citizens, similar to the anger of our Founding Fathers when they were disenfranchised by the Crown? Is not the "treatment" worse than the "disease"?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Automatic weapons are not 'banned.' A citizen can own an automatic weapon if he/she pays the tax (about $300). Additionally, he/she must apply for the stamp which requires background checks, criminal checks, signoff on the application by a local law enforcement official(i.e., sheriff, etc.). A lot to go through, but they are not 'banned.'
Oh....any by the way....we need FULL access to ALL of your medical records to determine if you have a "history of mental illness".
Sounds like she would like to have the 2nd Amendment restrict us to owning nothing but antique black powder flintlocks, and that we should only shoot to “injure”, not to kill.
No, but ownership does require an extra tax be paid.
Yeah shes a liberal.. LoL..
The second amendment is to make REVOLUTION LEGAL.. when "liberals" take over..
Its not about the right to target shoot or the right to HUNT..
Its about the right to REVOLT with prejudice..
Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.
not really. its about the same action. stick your finger in the hole, curl finger slightly and pull back.
besides, my AR, just like any AKs, SKSs, FALs, CETMEs, et al, can spray bullets just about as fast by pulling the trigger multiple times as they could full auto.
personally, i don't like full auto weapons. i don't see the point, i find them too hard to control. i prefer the simple accuracy of a well built bolt rifle. but i also think that if i wanted one, i should be able to get one easier than i could now (like if my fiance keeps pestering me about getting a thompson, i want to be able to get it.)
Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it?
Exactly what they want to suppress. Esp. the .50 cal, capable of penetrating an armored car body.
As for the mental illness part,
What about all the kids, and adults, that have taken anti- ADHD, depression drugs ie. Prozac, Ritalin.
Many of these prescriptions were unnecessary but now they are part of peoples permanent records.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.